Introduction: A New Line in the Sand
Germany is once again at the forefront of the copyright debate — and this time, the battleground is the humble news snippet. In a move that’s raising eyebrows in both publishing and tech circles, the Federal Ministry of Justice has proposed a revision to the ancillary copyright law that limits unlicensed use of journalistic content to just eight words.
For many, this may sound like a minor technicality. But when you peel back the layers, this update reveals a lot about how governments, tech giants, and content creators are grappling with the value of digital information in 2025’s internet economy.
Let’s break it all down — the law, the politics, the platform wars, and why this “eight-word rule” might shape how we consume and share news going forward.
What Is Ancillary Copyright — and Why Does It Matter?
First, a quick recap. Ancillary copyright (in German, Leistungsschutzrecht) is a legal concept that gives press publishers certain rights over how their content is used by third parties — especially online aggregators and search engines. Think Google News displaying snippets of an article, or Facebook generating previews when someone shares a link.
The original idea was simple: if a tech platform profits from republishing content (even indirectly, through ad revenue), then the original content creators should receive a cut. But putting that into practice? Not so simple.
Germany introduced its first version of the ancillary copyright law back in 2013. The results were messy. Google, rather than paying licensing fees, simply removed snippets from affected publishers, causing many to lose traffic. Eventually, some publishers allowed free use of their content again, just to stay visible.
So why revise the law now?
Why the Law Is Being Revised — and What’s Changing
The new revision stems from the EU Copyright Directive of 2019, which encourages member states to modernize copyright laws for the digital age. Germany’s current revision is designed to better align with the directive while fixing problems from the 2013 rollout.
One of the most contentious updates? A new rule stating that search engines and aggregators can use up to eight words of a press article without needing a license.
That’s right — just eight words.
If you’re thinking, “Wait, isn’t that arbitrary?” — you’re not alone. But there’s more nuance here than meets the eye.
The Eight-Word Rule: Arbitrary or Reasonable?
The Ministry of Justice’s rationale is based on a bit of linguistic math. Academic analysis shows that an average sentence in German quality journalism is about 19.8 words long. So, by allowing eight words, the law permits less than half a sentence — enough to give context in a search result, but not enough to cannibalize the article’s full value.
Interestingly, publisher associations wanted an even stricter limit — just three words — arguing that anything more gives tech companies a free ride. But the Ministry rejected that request, favoring a balance that still leaves room for basic functionality like previews and headlines in feeds.
The seven-word precedent also came into play, referencing an earlier recommendation by the German Patent and Trademark Office in a case between VG Media (a collecting society) and Google. But even then, a Berlin judge called the limit “too tight.” So, eight words it is.
But What Counts as a “Word”?
Here’s where things get trickier. Is a hyphenated phrase one word or two? Does punctuation matter? How do different languages or writing styles affect word count?
The law doesn’t get into these weeds, and that ambiguity may become a flashpoint if enforcement ramps up. As with many copyright questions, gray areas are inevitable — and probably intentional. It gives courts room to interpret case-by-case.
What Else the Law Changes
1. Facts Are Not Protected
The law reinforces a key principle: facts themselves are not copyrightable. What is protected is the presentation of those facts — how they’re written, structured, and conveyed. So simply stating that a new policy passed or that an event occurred isn’t protected, but a journalist’s original expression of that information is.
2. Linking Is Safe
Another important carveout: simply linking to a news article — even in a tweet or social media post — is not considered a violation, even if the platform is commercial (like Twitter or LinkedIn). The law targets content reproduction, not hyperlinking.
3. Visual and Multimedia Previews: Still Unclear
Earlier drafts proposed strict limits for preview images (e.g., 128×128 pixels) and clips (e.g., 3-second video previews), but the final draft removed these numbers. Why? Because tech evolves too fast for rigid rules. Instead, the law defers to technical standards as they develop, allowing flexibility.
This section remains fuzzy, and critics argue that this opens the door to inconsistent enforcement — or worse, legal overreach.
The Economic Angle: Who Gets Paid?
This is where things get more interesting.
Under the new law:
- Publishers can claim licensing fees from platforms for use of snippets beyond eight words.
- Authors and creators (including photographers and illustrators) must receive at least one-third of that revenue via collecting societies.
- Publishers also get a share of compensation for private copies, but this provision kicks in after June 2021.
In theory, this creates a fairer economic model. In practice, it adds bureaucracy — and questions remain about how much money will actually trickle down to creators versus legal and administrative overhead.
Critics and Concerns: Is This the Death of the Open Web?
Opponents of the law — particularly in the tech and digital rights communities — warn that tight snippet rules could erode the openness and fluidity of the internet. They point to potential chilling effects on sharing, news visibility, and even memes.
For example, if platforms face unclear or costly licensing demands, they may:
- Reduce previews or snippets altogether
- Avoid linking to smaller or regional publishers
- Prefer larger publishers with existing licensing agreements
Introduction: A New Line in the Sand
Germany is once again at the forefront of the copyright debate — and this time, the battleground is the humble news snippet. In a move that’s raising eyebrows in both publishing and tech circles, the Federal Ministry of Justice has proposed a revision to the ancillary copyright law that limits unlicensed use of journalistic content to just eight words.
For many, this may sound like a minor technicality. But when you peel back the layers, this update reveals a lot about how governments, tech giants, and content creators are grappling with the value of digital information in 2025’s internet economy.
Let’s break it all down — the law, the politics, the platform wars, and why this “eight-word rule” might shape how we consume and share news going forward.
What Is Ancillary Copyright — and Why Does It Matter?
First, a quick recap. Ancillary copyright (in German, Leistungsschutzrecht) is a legal concept that gives press publishers certain rights over how their content is used by third parties — especially online aggregators and search engines. Think Google News displaying snippets of an article, or Facebook generating previews when someone shares a link.
The original idea was simple: if a tech platform profits from republishing content (even indirectly, through ad revenue), then the original content creators should receive a cut. But putting that into practice? Not so simple.
Germany first implemented the ancillary copyright law in 2013.
The results were messy. Google, rather than paying licensing fees, simply removed snippets from affected publishers, causing many to lose traffic. Eventually, some publishers allowed free use of their content again, just to stay visible.
So why revise the law now?
Why the Law Is Being Revised — and What’s Changing
The new revision stems from the EU Copyright Directive of 2019, which encourages member states to modernize copyright laws for the digital age. Germany’s current revision is designed to better align with the directive while fixing problems from the 2013 rollout.
One of the most contentious updates? A new rule stating that search engines and aggregators can use up to eight words of a press article without needing a license.
That’s right — just eight words.
If you’re thinking, “Wait, isn’t that arbitrary?” — you’re not alone. Yet, the matter is far more complicated than it seems at first glance.
The Eight-Word Rule: Arbitrary or Reasonable?
The Ministry of Justice’s rationale is based on a bit of linguistic math. Academic analysis shows that an average sentence in German quality journalism is about 19.8 words long. So, by allowing eight words, the law permits less than half a sentence — enough to give context in a search result, but not enough to cannibalize the article’s full value.
Interestingly, publisher associations wanted an even stricter limit — just three words — arguing that anything more gives tech companies a free ride. But the Ministry rejected that request, favoring a balance that still leaves room for basic functionality like previews and headlines in feeds.
The seven-word precedent also came into play, referencing an earlier recommendation by the German Patent and Trademark Office in a case between VG Media (a collecting society) and Google. But even then, a Berlin judge called the limit “too tight.” So, eight words it is.
But What Counts as a “Word”?
Here’s where things get trickier. When it comes to hyphenated terms, the question arises: Do they count as one word or two?
Does punctuation matter? How do different languages or writing styles affect word count?
The law doesn’t get into these weeds, and that ambiguity may become a flashpoint if enforcement ramps up. As with many aspects of copyright law, there are inevitable gray areas — and these ambiguities might not be accidental.
It gives courts room to interpret case-by-case.
What Else the Law Changes
1. Facts Are Not Protected
One fundamental principle the law upholds is that facts, in themselves, cannot be copyrighted.
What is protected is the presentation of those facts — how they’re written, structured, and conveyed. So simply stating that a new policy passed or that an event occurred isn’t protected, but a journalist’s original expression of that information is.
2. Linking Is Safe
Another important carveout: simply linking to a news article — even in a tweet or social media post — is not considered a violation, even if the platform is commercial (like Twitter or LinkedIn). The law targets content reproduction, not hyperlinking.
3. Visual and Multimedia Previews: Still Unclear
Earlier drafts proposed strict limits for preview images (e.g., 128×128 pixels) and clips (e.g., 3-second video previews), but the final draft removed these numbers. Why? Because tech evolves too fast for rigid rules. Instead, the law defers to technical standards as they develop, allowing flexibility.
This section remains fuzzy, and critics argue that this opens the door to inconsistent enforcement — or worse, legal overreach.
The Economic Angle: Who Gets Paid?
This is where things get more interesting.
Under the new law:
- Publishers can claim licensing fees from platforms for use of snippets beyond eight words.
- Authors and creators (including photographers and illustrators) must receive at least one-third of that revenue via collecting societies.
- Publishers also get a share of compensation for private copies, but this provision kicks in after June 2021.
In theory, this creates a fairer economic model. In practice, it adds bureaucracy — and questions remain about how much money will actually trickle down to creators versus legal and administrative overhead.
Critics and Concerns: Is This the Death of the Open Web?
Opponents of the law — particularly in the tech and digital rights communities — warn that tight snippet rules could erode the openness and fluidity of the internet. They point to potential chilling effects on sharing, news visibility, and even memes.
For example, if platforms face unclear or costly licensing demands, they may:
- Reduce previews or snippets altogether
- Avoid linking to smaller or regional publishers
- Prefer larger publishers with existing licensing agreements
This could ironically harm the very publishers the law is meant to protect — especially startups and indie outlets trying to grow their audience.
What’s Missing? Article 17 and the Bigger Picture
The current revision doesn’t tackle Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive — the highly controversial provision that could require platforms to use upload filters to monitor user-generated content. That will come later, but it’s looming.
Nor does the law fully address text and data mining, a growing area of interest for AI and research companies. That’s still in limbo, though the proposal hints at looser restrictions on software-based data analysis.
Conclusion: Necessary Reform or Digital Overreach?
Germany’s revised ancillary copyright law is trying to thread a difficult needle: protect journalistic value while keeping the internet usable and competitive.
Will the eight-word rule bring clarity, or confusion? Will it lead to fairer compensation, or just more licensing red tape? The answers depend on how the law is implemented, enforced, and — most importantly — adapted to future digital realities.
For now, it’s a step forward in a long-running battle over who owns the value of information — and how that value gets distributed in a world where content is copied, shared, and monetized at lightning speed.
Your Turn: Is Eight Words Too Much or Too Little?
Do you think platforms should pay to use news snippets? Does this law go too far — or not far enough?
Drop a comment below or tag us on social media. Let’s hear your take on the future of copyright and digital journalism.